Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Report

Executive Summary

Aim:The workshop aimed to provide: time to exchange best practices on approaches to teaching research ethics to

undergraduate students, with colleagues from across a wide range of disciplines; and

an opportunity to reflect on and discuss issues like the scope of what to teach, how to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students and what teaching methods to best use.

Structure:The first half of the workshop consisted of presentations. Professor Paul White, Pro Vice Chancellor for Learning & Teaching, introduced the workshop and talked of the importance of research-led teaching, of students being equipped with a range of skills and techniques which help them to become independent learners, and of the importance of being reflective. Greater reflection about behaviour and practice can heighten ethical sensitivity and risk awareness. Professor Richard Jenkins, Chair of the University Research Ethics Committee, then explained the values underpinning the University’s approach to research ethics and integrity (an emphasis on trusting colleagues, on devolving responsibility, on promoting greater reflection and discussion of ethical challenges and encouraging learning by doing rather than passively absorbing knowledge). Participants were encouraged to read the Sheffield Academic and Sheffield Graduate Statements.

The perspectives of four academics, each from a different Faculty, were then shared on the subject of teaching RE. All the presentations can be viewed at: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/gov_ethics_grp/ethics/teachingug.html except for Professor Stock’s presentation, which is included at Annex 1 of the report.

The second half of the workshop took the form of a group discussion session in which participants considered the following questions:i. What should the desired learning outcomes be from teaching research ethics and

research integrity to undergraduate students?ii. What should the scope of teaching cover?iii. How to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students?iv. How is the teaching best delivered?

Conclusions:The following list of conclusions is drawn from the record of the group discussion session, which is presented at Annex 2 of the report:

1a University Research Ethics Committee event, supported byResearch & Innovation Services and Learning & Teaching Services

A. If students are seen as University of Sheffield ambassadors/Sheffield Graduates then it is even more important that students conduct their behaviour and practice according to acceptable ethical norms and standards;

B. Academics have a responsibility to communicate the importance of ethics and a wider number of academic staff who teach should incorporate teaching about ethics;

C. Effective teaching of ethics (research ethics (RE) and/or research integrity (RI) and/or professional ethics) should equip undergraduate students with a range of attributes and skills of use to them when undertaking research and in their professional careers and lives;

D. There should be an emphasis on encouraging undergraduate students to think (e.g. through encouraging learning by doing and through employing teaching methods that encourage greater reflection and which heighten ethical sensitivity);

E. Undergraduate students should learn about the relationship between ethics and research and about concepts (ethics, integrity, professionalism) and about why ethics is important;

F. Undergraduate students should learn about RE and about RI and about professional ethics to different degrees depending on their discipline;

G. Given the influence of culture on norms, attitudes, behaviours and practices, inter-cultural awareness needs to be strengthened through teaching ethics;

H. Teaching needs to be pitched at the right level and one should not make assumptions about prior knowledge and experience, but instead build teaching based on training needs analyses/initial discussions with students;

I. It should be recognised that undergraduate students do themselves potentially have a lot to contribute and teachers can learn from them and make use of them as a teaching resource;

J. Undergraduate students should learn about generic and discipline-specific issues and about values / principles, but they do not need to become ethics experts;

K. A combination of carrots and sticks can be used to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students in ethics;

L. It may be better to embed / integrate the teaching of ethics into modules rather than having specific modules about ethics;

M. Teaching may need to occur over an extended period, be drip fed with the complexity and depth of what is taught building up year on year, and with the potential for incorporating refresher sessions;

N. Teaching should be delivered at the most appropriate times;O. Ways of assessing the degree to which undergraduate students are building up

their understanding of ethics needs to be incorporated into the teaching design.

2a University Research Ethics Committee event, supported byResearch & Innovation Services and Learning & Teaching Services

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Main Report

Contents:1. Preface2. Background information3. Structure of the workshop4. The group discussion session5. Conclusions6. References7. Acknowledgements

1. PrefaceThe workshop, which was a University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) event supported by Research & Innovation Services and Learning & Teaching Services, aimed to provide: time to exchange best practices on approaches to teaching research ethics to

undergraduate students, with colleagues from across a wide range of disciplines; and

an opportunity to reflect on and discuss issues like the scope of what to teach, how to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students and what teaching methods to best use.

A mixture of academic members of staff, postgraduate research students and staff from professional services attended the workshop.

2. Background information2.1. Research ethics and research integrityIntegrated into the University’s Learning and Teaching Guidance and Policies is a requirement that academic departments “inform undergraduate and postgraduate taught students about the ethical aspects of conducting research that involves participants, though it is accepted that this will be proportionate to how relevant the matter of ethical issues in research involving human participants is to the student’s programme of study”. Furthermore, academic departments “are also encouraged to develop teaching/supporting material for students that takes account of the discipline-specific context and approach to research ethics and integrity”.

Most disciplines within the Engineering and Science Faculties and some disciplines within the Arts and Humanities Faculty conduct research involving human participants relatively infrequently and, therefore, within such disciplines it would not be appropriate to teach students about ethical issues which narrowly concern human participant-based research or to instruct them about the University’s Ethics Review (UER)Procedure, beyond alerting them to the fact that the UERProcedure exists and where to access further information about it. However, there are ethical issues which are relevant to all disciplines, which may be better described as issues about research integrity; or about good research practices or research governance or about being professional.

3

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

A narrow interpretation of research ethics is that it’s about a researcher’s relationships with and treatment of human participants. A wider interpretation of research ethics is that it’s about research integrity– i.e. about a researcher’s relationships with colleagues, students, professional communities, funders and the general public and about a researcher’s relationship to the actual role and task of research.

For the rest of the report research ethics will be referred to as RE and research integrity as RI.

More specifically, RI is a concept that covers issues such as: the need for balance between working collaboratively and competitively; the need for cross-cultural understanding between researchers from different

cultures with respect to their different values and expectations about behaviour and practice;

the importance of seeking continuing professional and personal development; the importance of high quality supervision; compliance with the law, funder and journal rules and professional standards; honest funding applications; research data (design, collection, analysis, recording, management, curation,

authorship, publication & communication, storage, retention, archiving); the need to stop corrupt practices and professional misconduct; conflicts of interest and commitment; research data (design, collection, analysis, recording, management, curation,

authorship, publication & communication, storage, retention, archiving); peer review; authorship and publication practices; public engagement/communication.All the above issues have generic relevance to all research disciplines. There are also discipline-specific or cognate discipline-specific ethical issues (e.g. .g. duty of care to human participants in research (stem cell research, research involving human tissue); care for animals; protection of the environment research) and some types of research are heavily regulated (e.g. by the Home Office, the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority, the Human Tissue Authority).

2.2 Recent developmentsIn the 2008/9 academic year the UREC published a short leaflet Research Ethics and Integrity. The leaflet was issued to all staff and students and is available from: www.shef.ac.uk/ethics. Endorsed by the Vice Chancellor, the leaflet was based on the ex-Chief Scientist Sir David King’s Universal Ethical Code for Scientists and succinctly summarises RE as a combination of rigour, respect and responsibility. The leaflet marries the concepts of RE and RI.

The Research Councils UK’s new Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct (RCUK Policy) is a holistic document as its scope covers RE & RI issues. The RCUK Policy applies to students as well as to researchers, research support staff, research managers and administrators. The RCUK Policy includes a statement that universities “should have in place systematic procedures for training and mentoring” and training is one method for promoting responsible research conduct which the document places particular emphasis on. Compliance with the RCUK Policy became part of the RCUK’s funding terms and conditions on 1st October 2009 and its remit extends to all supervised-student and staff-led research activities undertaken in institutions in receipt of RCUK funding.

The US National Academies’, in its publication Integrity in Scientific Research, states that “Education in the responsible conduct of research is critical, but if not done

4

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

appropriately and in a creative way, then education is likely to be of only modest help and may be ineffective”. The provision of education and training on RE and RI is an essential component in any multifaceted approach to fostering a learning and research environment that promotes integrity, alongside strong leadership and supervision, clear policies and procedures, and support systems which promote and incentivise good behaviours and practices.

2.3 Integrating research skills into the undergraduate curriculumIn its Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy to 2010, the University (www.shef.ac.uk/lets/projects/strategy) places strong emphasis on developing research skills within any undergraduate curriculum, and this is then reflected in the attributes of a Sheffield Graduate – ‘an independent learner and researcher’ (www.shef.ac.uk/sheffieldgraduate/). Not only is there a natural internal driver for this as a research-led institution, but external drivers and many employers are steering higher education institutions towards providing at least some undergraduate research experience for their students. In 2008, a report to the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills by Ramsden (2008, p11) suggested that all curricula should “incorporate research-based study for undergraduates”. A second report, also to the Secretary of State by Thrift (2008, p2) recommends that “Research Councils should work with universities, research institutes, charities and industry to develop a national Research Experiences Programme for undergraduate students”.

These external and internal drivers to increase undergraduate research experiences encourage an expectation that universities should teach undergraduate students about RE and RI.

2.4 Benefits from teaching RE and RIThere are, however, many other positive reasons for proactively teaching RE and RI to undergraduate students. Greater reflection can heighten ethical sensitivity and risk awareness which better prepares and protects people for a wide range of ethical challenges. In all walks of life individuals encounter ethical dilemmas and heightening the ethical awareness of PGRs develops their critical thinking and judgment, equipping them with an important life skill which increasingly employers value.

For those undergraduate students who intend to become postgraduates and/or who eventually plan on pursuing a research career it is essential that they do not become disenchanted, or worse learn questionable research practices (QRPs), by witnessing or hearing about QRPs (the impact of education may be weakened if what is taught is not actively practised by supervisors). Therefore, arguably as early as possible (i.e. at the undergraduate level) students need to learn that research must be carried out with integrity and to high ethical standards and that ethics should routinely inform all aspects of research. “The responsible conduct of research is not distinct from research; on the contrary, competency in research encompasses the responsible conduct of that research and the capacity for ethical decision making” (page 9, Integrity in Scientific Research, published by the US National Academies).

There are indications that today’s students are more discerning in their choice of universities and that some consider a university’s reputation for ethical conduct and corporate social responsibility as one factor in their decision-making. Many undergraduate students may welcome the opportunity to acquire ethical skills. Conversely, there is evidence that at school plagiarism is on the increase, aided by access to tools (e.g. the internet) which facilitate plagiarism. In teaching RE and RI universities need to teach undergraduate students about good practices but may also need, with respect to some students, to teach undergraduate students how to unlearn some unacceptable practices which they may have developed at school.

5

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Furthermore, students from different academic cultures may bring with them expectations, norms, values and behaviours which are not viewed as acceptable in the British higher education learning context. (see ‘Plagiarism and the Confucian Heritage Culture Student’, L Brennan and J Durovic). Where an intake of undergraduate students includes students from a diversity of cultures, when teaching RE and RI the teacher may need to be cognisant of the fact that the students may not all be starting with the same beliefs regarding what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

2.5 Desired learning outcomesTeaching RE and RI is not simply a matter of expecting undergraduate students to memorize and comply with policies, procedures and guidelines, important that they are in helping to construct a discourse, in helping to convey key values and principles, in helping to clarify what is and is not acceptable and in helping to create a framework for guiding behaviour in research. In teaching RE and RI the ambition in terms of what desired learning outcomes should be achieved for students can be much greater. Desired learning outcomes can be about strengthening understanding, through greater reflection about issues, values, behaviors and practices, as well as about simply imparting knowledge. This could range from equipping students with the skill to identify the ethical dimensions of situations that arise in their research right through to equipping students with attributes and skills that develop their ethical identity so that they have the strength in life not to compromise on their ethical principles and standards whilst continuing to survive and succeed (i.e. from heightening sensitivity through to developing internal survival skills). There may be a need to equip students with the ability to apply ethics as opposed to simply to understand ethics. It is worth noting that the depth of understanding of RE and RI that undergraduate students are expected to develop will be less than that expected of postgraduate students.

Lastly, and not least, given that the vast majority of undergraduate students do not choose to pursue a research career, then arguably the primary desired outcome should be to equip undergraduate students with broader, non-research specific skills in ethical awareness which employers may value. Certainly, the accrediting bodies of all professionally-oriented undergraduate courses will expect this as a key component of the student learning experience.

3. The structure of the workshopThe first half of the workshop consisted of presentations and the second half took the form of a group discussion session.

Professor Paul White, Pro Vice Chancellor for Learning & Teaching, introduced the workshop and talked of the importance of research-led teaching, of students being equipped with a range of skills and techniques which help them to become independent learners, and of the importance of being reflective. Greater reflection about behaviour and practice can heighten ethical sensitivity and risk awareness. The expected attributes of the Sheffield Graduate include being independent learners and being reflective and self aware.

The Chair of the UREC, Professor Richard Jenkins, then explained the values underpinning the University’s approach to RE and RI. The approach placed an emphasis on trusting colleagues, on devolving responsibility to staff and students, on promoting greater reflection and discussion of ethical challenges and, with respect to students, encouraging learning by doing rather than passively absorbing knowledge. Participants were encouraged to read the Sheffield Academic and Sheffield Graduate statements.

6

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

The perspectives of four academics, each from a different Faculty, were then shared on the subject of teaching RE. From the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Professor Jonathan Stock shared his thoughts on ethics-related teaching within the department of Music’s UG curriculum. From the Faculty of Engineering, Professor John Yates, of the department of Mechanical Engineering, talked about the professional responsibilities of engineers, the expectation that an accredited degree includes some discussion of ethics and outlined his approach to teaching RE. Dr Jennifer Burr, from ScHARR within the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, shared her approach to teaching RE, which included highlighting four ‘Ps’ (principles and processes of ethical research, people and practicalities of ethical research).Dr Peter Bath, from Information Studies within the Social Sciences Faculty, concluded with a presentation that explained how he introduced UG students to RE, starting by setting the context, discussing concepts and issues, through to the use of examples and case studies to illustrate issues.

All the presentations can be viewed at: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/gov_ethics_grp/ethics/teachingug.htmlexcept for Professor Stock’s presentation, which is included at Annex 1.

The second half of the workshop took the form of a group discussion session in which workshop participants divided into small groups, each of which discussed and recorded ideas, suggestions and good practice for teaching RE-RI.

4. The group discussion sessionIn order to maximise the best use of time, a framework to guide the discussion about teaching RE and RI had been circulated to the participants before the workshop. It was suggested that small groups, each comprised of members of staff and postgraduate research students from different research disciplines, should focus their discussions around the following four issues:v. What should the desired learning outcomes be from teaching RE - RI to

undergraduate students?Is the desired learning outcome to heighten ethical sensitivity and thereby better prepare undergraduate students for RE and RI challenges that they may encounter when undertaking their research project/dissertation and/or is the desired learning outcome to equip undergraduate students with skills in ethical awareness which employers may value?

vi. What should the scope of teaching cover?Should teaching focus on RE and RI issues that are discipline-specific and/or should teaching address issues that are generic and relevant to a range of cognate disciplines or generic and relevant to all disciplines?

vii. How to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students?viii. How is the teaching best delivered?ix. What delivery methods are effective in achieving the desired learning outcomes

and attracting and retaining the interest of undergraduate students?

The findings from each of the groups which took part in the group discussion session have been collated and are presented at Annex 2.

5. Conclusions

The following list of conclusions is drawn from the record of the group discussion session:

7

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

P. If students are seen as University of Sheffield ambassadors/Sheffield Graduates then it is even more important that students conduct their behaviour and practice according to acceptable ethical norms and standards;

Q. Academics have a responsibility to communicate the importance of ethics and a wider number of academic staff who teach should incorporate teaching about ethics;

R. Effective teaching of ethics (research ethics (RE) and/or research integrity (RI) and/or professional ethics) should equip undergraduate students with a range of attributes and skills of use to them when undertaking research and in their professional careers and lives;

S. There should be an emphasis on encouraging undergraduate students to think (e.g. through encouraging learning by doing and through employing teaching methods that encourage greater reflection and which heighten ethical sensitivity);

T. Undergraduate students should learn about the relationship between ethics and research and about concepts (ethics, integrity, professionalism) and about why ethics is important;

U. Undergraduate students should learn about RE and about RI and about professional ethics to different degrees depending on their discipline;

V. Given the influence of culture on norms, attitudes, behaviours and practices, inter-cultural awareness needs to be strengthened through teaching ethics;

W. Teaching needs to be pitched at the right level and one should not make assumptions about prior knowledge and experience, but instead build teaching based on training needs analyses/initial discussions with students;

X. It should be recognised that undergraduate students do themselves potentially have a lot to contribute and teachers can learn from them and make use of them as a teaching resource;

Y. Undergraduate students should learn about generic and discipline-specific issues and about values / principles, but they do not need to become ethics experts;

Z. A combination of carrots and sticks can be used to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students in ethics;

AA. It may be better to embed / integrate the teaching of ethics into modules rather than having specific modules about ethics;

BB. Teaching may need to occur over an extended period, be drip fed with the complexity and depth of what is taught building up year on year, and with the potential for incorporating refresher sessions;

CC. Teaching should be delivered at the most appropriate times;DD. Ways of assessing the degree to which undergraduate students are building up

their understanding of ethics needs to be incorporated into the teaching design.

6. ReferencesBrennan L, Durovic J “Plagiarism” and the Confucian Heritage Culture Student. Paper presented to the second Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity conference, available at: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/papers.html (accessed 15 February 2010)Committee on assessing integrity in research environments, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council of the National Academies (2002) Integrity in Scientific Research (The National Academies Press)Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2009) On being a scientist 3rd edition, available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192 (accessed 15 February 2010)Macrina, F L 2005) Scientific Integrity 3rd edition (ASM Press)

8

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Ramsden, P (2008) Future of Higher Education Teaching and the Student Experience, available at:www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/he_debate/~/media/publications/T/teaching_and_student_experience_131008 (accessed 15 February 2010)Research Councils UK (2009) Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/reviews/grc/goodresearchconductcode.pdfSteneck, N (2007) Introduction to the responsible conduct of research, USA Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/rcrintro.pdf ( accessed 29 April 2010)Thrift, N (2008) Research careers in the UK: a review, available at:www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/he_debate/research_careers (accessed 15 February 2010)Vollmer, S and Matchett, N J (2009) article in the December 2009 edition of the US Office of Research Integrity’s Newsletter available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol18_no1.pdf (accessed 15 February 2010)The US Office of Research Integrity website contains a wealth of information on teaching RE and RI:http://ori.dhhs.gov/

The following page within the University’s central research ethics and integrity website, which is itself located within the Research & Innovation Services’ website, provides links to useful publications, policies and codes, to external conference proceedings and to external bodies which are active in promoting research integrity:www.shef.ac.uk/ris/gov_ethics_grp/ethics/externallinks.html

7. AcknowledgementsThe UREC would like to acknowledge the support of the following people in the delivery of the workshop: Dr Peter Bath Dr Jennifer Burr Ms Deanna Meth Professor Jonathan Stock Professor Paul White Professor John Yates

9

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Annex 1

An Academic’s Perspective...: Thoughts on Ethics-related Teaching as Found in the Music Undergraduate Curriculum

Jonathan P. J. Stockj.pj.stock@sheffield.ac.uk

The modules mentioned are examples, and include core and optional units.

A). First Year

Individual Project module explicitly includes Ethics Review, why and when it is needed, how to do it

(including the mechanics of the form filling). This has made a real impact on undergraduate students’ understanding of these issues over the last few years.

Music of the World module includes a lecture on the impact of researchers on the researched in

traditional music worldwide.

Sound and Science module includes instruction on experimental design with live research subjects.

As a result of this, our students seem to be coming into the second year of their degrees with a sense of what can be at stake in music research and where their own responsibilities lie. The Individual Project module is being discontinued due to staffing changes, however, so we have a void opening up here, and need to think where to put the explicit training part mentioned above from Autumn 2010 on.

B). Second & Third Year

Modules at present or over the last several years that have explicitly addressed aspects of ethical research include Music Education, Music and Health, Music Therapy, Psychology of Music, Music Management, Ethnomusicology and Music in Culture and Society. Ethics-related content new to these stages of the degree includes working with external partners, intervention through applied research, copyright and intellectual property, research with children and with vulnerable groups, fieldwork, interviewing, online research, issues of prejudice and respect, and questions of anonymity versus giving due credit. Some students each year choose to base assignments on challenges like these, and so are seeing them as of interest in themselves, not simply as challenges in approaching musical materials. This is obviously very good for their broader intellectual and personal development. Feedback on ethical questions is found in tutorials at this level as well as in some lectures, workshops and practical activities. Sometimes, we find students are faster to grasp the human aspects that are stake, but a little slower to rethink their musical assumptions as a result of these, such that some prejudices about alternative forms of music making remain even alongside a much more open attitude to the people concerned. It would be interesting to know if this occurs in other subjects and disciplines as well.

C). Third Year

10

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Half or so of the students in the Department of Music choose to write a dissertation, and, if so, they receive individual supervision plus a series of introductory lectures on the mechanics of carrying out such a project, which again includes explicit introduction to ethics. We seem to have less explicitly in place for the parallel performance and composition students, however, although some hints may occur in their individual lessons and supervisions as well—there are issues of copyright permissions, for instance, that could be good to consider before the final examinations, not least if the student wishes to publish that material or re-use it after graduation. Overall, we still seem to have more emphasis still on process and production of work at undergraduate level than on final results, and while that matches the fact that most such work does not live on far beyond assessment and feedback, there are obvious cases where students will want to build a portfolio of work examples to launch them into a professional career in the performing arts after graduation.

11

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Annex 2Teaching Ethics

Collated findings from the group discussion session

In the following boxes the word ethics in lower case is used to cover research ethics (RE) and/or research integrity (RI) and/or professional ethics. RE or RI or ETHICS is used when referring explicitly to one type of ethics (ETHICS meaning professional ethics).

Issue 1: What should the desired learning outcomes be from teaching RE - RI to undergraduate students?

Research-specific attributes and skills:i. Understanding that good research is also ethical research;ii. Ethics is viewed in a positive light and as improving the learning process; any negative pre-existing assumptions are dispelled;iii. Awareness that ethics is not about rules, but is about debating and exploring grey areas through a logical framework of

discussion;iv. Strengthening inter-cultural awareness, given the influence of culture on norms, attitudes, behaviours and practices;v. Developing a questioning attitude; gaining the confidence to question ethical issues and to explore grey areas through

discussion;vi. Strengthening analytical and decision-making skills from looking at ethical challenges where answers may not be clear; thinking

through decisions and their implications;vii. Acquiring generic skills relating to ethics;viii. Understanding generic principles and values of ethics and understanding discipline-specific issues;ix. Heightened ethical sensitivity results in being better prepared to cope with ethical issues in practice.Transferable attributes and skills:i. Greater understanding of the nature of professional and personal responsibility;ii. Encouraging reflection of ETHICS in everyday life.

General Point:It is important that academics are aware of their responsibilities, which include communicating the importance of ethics ( the display at all times of the highest standards of research ethics and integrity (from the Sheffield Academic Statement)). It is recognised that staff play a key role in influencing behaviours and practices, including influencing the degree to which students approach ethics training positively. Ethics teaching has a greater impact when students can see that those values are operating within their department / that staff are behaving with integrity. Staff need to explain to students the ethical foundations of their behaviour.

12

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Issue 2: What should the scope of the teaching cover?

i. Exploring the language (e.g. ethics, integrity, governance, risk, professional); the values of rigour, respect and responsibility may be more useful than ethics;

ii. The integrated nature of the relationship between ethics and research;iii. RE & RI should be given equal weight and consideration;iv. Exploring the impact of culture and tradition;v. Exploring the idea that all research has an ethical dimension (not only research that requires formal ethics approval);vi. The historical background to the current social ethical context;vii. Exploring key principles (e.g. engineering depends on science and truth);viii. Explore generic RE & RI issues (e.g. plagiarism, copyright, research data (design, collection, analysis, recording, management,

curation, authorship, publication & communication, storage, retention, archiving), stopping corrupt practices and professional misconduct, conflicts of interest and commitment, authorship and publication practices, public engagement/communication);

ix. Discipline-specific issues: e.g. RE issues relating to research with human participants; including the importance of safeguarding participants and the researchers themselves; e.g. RE issues relating to research with animals; e.g. research governance;

x. Within medicine-related disciplines, understanding the complicated relationship between RE and medical ethics;xi. Explore values that are required as a professional – professional integrity (i.e. ETHICS and not only RE & RI);xii. Exploring grey areas where boundaries or rules are unclear;xiii. Exploring clashes in cultural norms and values;xiv. Awareness about the requirements of actual processes (e.g. to obtain ethics approval, application form, timescale) – ensure

that the ‘Doomsday scenario’ is avoided wherein a student fails to obtain the necessary ethics approval, leading to potential failure;

xv.Appreciation that as research evolves research can bring fresh ethical challenges; including awareness about the requirement of further ethics review if research has significantly changed since the original ethics approval.

General Points:In terms of the scope of teaching content, some workshop participants felt that it should include what’s necessary – i.e. students don’t need to know everything about ethics and don’t need to become experts, but they do need to know where to seek advice.What is necessary?/what should the core content be? What is optional?All students come from different backgrounds with different levels of experience and knowledge – need a foundation common to all.Don’t overload students with information.Do students need to have a thorough understanding or is it just about raising awareness?

13

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Issue 3: How to attract and retain the interest of undergraduate students?

i. Students need to clearly understand why they are learning about ethics (the desired learning outcomes, the benefits)ii. On the positive (carrot) side it should be made clear to students that:

being ethically aware brings potential benefits (e.g. to their careers, lives); they themselves have a lot to contribute because of their different backgrounds, knowledge and experiences – students can

teach the teachers too – students themselves provide a teaching resource.iii. On the compliance (stick) side it should be made clear to students that:

marking criteria will be included in assessment that judges the degree to which a student has understood RE and RI (e.g. some students may want to see tangible benefits like an exam result);

they may fail if they do not obtain ethics approval (where this is required for certain types of research); students are expected to register (i.e. sign in) when they attend sessions (e.g. lectures, seminars) about ethics.

iv. The ethical good nature of students should be appealed to;v. Teaching needs to be sufficiently tailored to the discipline and its culture (e.g. medical ethics and research ethics; e.g. animal

ethics) – i.e. students need to be able to apply ethics to their own studies;vi. Teaching at the point of need / at the most appropriate times so that it’s relevance is clear;vii. Students need to learn about the consequences of unacceptable research practices;viii. Learning about ethics needs to be seen as relevant to future careers (i.e. need to teach about ETHICS and not only about RE

and RI).

General Points:A combination of carrots and sticks can be used.Certain interactive learning styles may be more effective in attracting and retaining the interest of students but can require more preparation / more time consuming to design and deliver.It’s hard to engage students if ethics is seen as being abstract and/or entirely theoretical.

14

Workshop: Teaching Research Ethics to Undergraduate Students

Issue 4: How is the teaching best delivered?

i. Better to embed the teaching of ethics into modules rather than having specific modules about ethics (e.g. infuse across all courses), otherwise ethics can be seen as being optional and/or less important. Ethics can be very useful in linking different parts of a curriculum.

ii. A wider number of academic staff who teach should teach about ethics;iii. Awareness of ethics should be raised from a low point (i.e. start from basics) as one cannot assume that students start with

sufficient prior knowledge;iv. The importance of ethics should be planted from a very early stage;v. Ethics teaching should be staggered with knowledge and understanding built up over a longer period / peppered in at relevant

points during the course of study / integrated across the board / drip feeding of learning;vi. Ethics teaching should be staggered but delivered at the right times (e.g. delivering at induction versus delivery at the point of

need (e.g. just prior to the design of a research project);ix. There should be an emphasis on encouraging students to think:

through learning by doing (e.g. giving students practical experience of applying for ethics approval, critically appraising research ethics application form; providing the opportunity to gain experience as a human participant);

through teaching methods that encourage greater reflection (e.g. reflective discussion in small groups (e.g. discussion of ethical dilemmas, case studies, scenarios; talking through the research ethics application form); e.g. providing signposting information to further sources of reading for students to then proactively follow up; e.g. at the end of a lecture asking students to consider certain issues in the intervening time before the next lecture);

part of the learning process is getting things wrong and learning from the experience.vii. There needs to be a balance in teaching methods (e.g. group work, lectures, tutorials); endless reflection exercises become

repetitive;viii. The effectiveness of group discussion depends on the performance of each member of the group (e.g. their degree of

commitment and contributions to the discussion). Because of this each member of a group (i.e. each student) could be expected to rate the performance of the other members, thereby making the learning process as important as the product. This currently works effectively within one engineering discipline.

15